Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.

Filing 123

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 108 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROMCASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CENTRIFY CORPORATION,

5
6
7
8
9

No. C 10-3873 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM
CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULE
(Docket No. 108)

v.
QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff Centrify Corporation seeks relief from the case

12

management order’s deadline for fact discovery for the limited

13

purpose of deposing a representative of third-party company Bank

14

of America, a customer of Defendant Quest Software, Inc.

15

Defendant opposes the motion.

16

The Court has taken the matter

under consideration on the papers.

For the reasons set forth

17
below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.
18
BACKGROUND

19
20

At the December 14, 2010 case management conference in this

21

case, the fact discovery deadline was set as September 1, 2011.

22

Docket No. 33.

23
24

On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff served its first interrogatories
on Defendant.

Sandrock Decl., Ex. 1.

In Interrogatory Seven,

25
Plaintiff asked Defendant, inter alia, to identify the names of
26
customers who were sold the accused product and all documents
27
28

relating to such sales.

Id. at 7-8.

In Interrogatory Eight,

1

Plaintiff asked Defendant to identify and describe all non-

2

privileged documents and communications between Defendant and any

3

third party, including customers and potential customers, relating

4

to the accused feature.

5
6

Id. at 8.

On August 3, 2011, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories.

Armon Decl., Ex. G.

In response to

7
Interrogatory Seven, Defendant did not identify any customers by
8
9

name and instead only identified several documents that it stated
Id. at 14.

In response to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

were relevant to the interrogatory.

11

Interrogatory Eight, Defendant stated, among other things, “Quest

12

has produced a large number of communications with Bank of America

13

relating to the subject matter of this Interrogatory.”

14

In other interrogatory responses, Defendant referred to “Quest

Id. at 16.

15
customers” who use the accused features.

Id. at 20.

16
On August 12, 2011, after Plaintiff requested that Defendant
17
18

supplement its responses, Defendant informed Plaintiff “that the

19

only ‘customer’ referred to in its interrogatory was Bank of

20

America.”

21

Bank of America in North Carolina on August 18, 2011.

22

Decl., Ex. 3.

23

Sandrock Decl. ¶ 4.

Plaintiff served a subpoena on
Sandrock

On August 22, 2011, Defendant amended its response

to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories to state, “Based on

24
the information presently available to Quest, Bank of America is
25
26

the only domestic customer that uses the form of Mapped User

27

functionality that Centrify accuses of infringement.”

28

Reply Decl. ¶ 2.
2

Sandrock

1

On August 31, 2011, Bank of America moved to quash

2

Plaintiff’s subpoena.

3

Bank of America had so moved, because Defendant stated that

4

“Centrify indicated that it was unable to confirm a deposition

5

date for Bank of America, but that it expected the deposition to

6

It is not clear whether Defendant knew that

proceed within days or, at most, a week or two.”

Armon Decl. 10.

7
After discussion on September 1, 2011, Defendant told Plaintiff in
8
9

an email that it “is premature for Centrify to file a motion

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

seeking to extend the discovery period for the purpose of deposing

11

Bank of America,” because at that point, “Centrify is unable to

12

identify the length of its proposed extension.”

13

Ex. H.

14

extension should have been filed prior to the close of fact

Armon Decl.,

Defendant also said that it would not argue a motion for

15
discovery, if a motion became necessary, and that it would not
16
oppose a “short extension” of the fact discovery period “solely to
17
18

depose Bank of America and if the extension does not unfairly

19

prejudice Quest or affect other case deadlines.”

20

October, while the motion to quash was pending, Defendant proposed

21

potential dates for the Bank of America deposition, asking that it

22

be scheduled at a time convenient for the parties and suggesting

23

Id.

In late

that the deadlines for expert reports be pushed back to

24
accommodate the deposition.

Sandrock Decl. ¶ 8.

25
26

On October 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the

27

Western District of North Carolina granted the motion to quash,

28

finding the subpoena overbroad.

Sandrock Decl., Ex. 5.
3

Centrify

1

re-issued the subpoena on November 7, 2011.

2

Ex. 6.

3

protective order in the Western District of North Carolina,

4

seeking to prevent the deposition from going forward on the basis

5

of the schedule in the instant action.

6

Sandrock Decl.,

On November 18, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for a

Sandrock Decl., Ex. 7.

On

November 21, 2011, Bank of America also filed a motion to quash

7
Plaintiff’s subpoena and for a protective order, also based in
8
9

part on the schedule in the instant action.

See Centrify Corp. v. Quest

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Ex. 8.

11

Software, Inc, Docket No. 3:11-mc-00177 (W.D. N.C.).

12

These motions are pending.

Sandrock Decl.,

Plaintiff filed this motion on November 23, 2011, seeking

13

relief from the case management order’s deadline for fact

14

discovery for the limited purpose of deposing a Bank of America

15
representative.

Plaintiff also filed a motion to shorten time on

16
the briefing and hearing schedules for the instant motion, which
17
18

this Court granted in part and denied in part on November 23,

19

2011.

20
21
22
23

Docket No. 110.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a case

management schedule can be modified upon a showing of good cause
and by leave of the district judge. The Ninth Circuit has stated

24
that the “‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence
25
26

of the party seeking the amendment.

The district court may modify

27

the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

28

diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
4

Johnson v.

1

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)

2

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983

3

amendment)).

4

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

5

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

6

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

moving party's reasons for seeking modification.”

Id. (citing

7
Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me.
8
9

1985)).
DISCUSSION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff argues that it could not reasonably complete the

12

deposition prior to the fact discovery deadline, because of Bank

13

of America’s opposition to the subpoena and because of Defendant’s

14

delay in identifying Bank of America as the only customer who

15
Defendant believes uses the accused feature.
16
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not acted diligently for
17
18

a variety of reasons.

19

Plaintiff should have been able to identify Bank of America as a

20

customer using the infringing feature through documents produced

21

prior to August 12, 2011.

22

responses identify Bank of America as a third party with whom

23

However, the Court is not persuaded that

While the original interrogatory

Defendant may have had communications regarding the accused

24
feature, they do not identify Bank of America as being a customer
25
26

who uses that feature, and Plaintiff served a subpoena less than a

27

week after learning this information.

28

discovery efforts by both parties at the time, it does not appear
5

Further, given the ongoing

1

that Plaintiff lacked diligence by serving its first

2

interrogatories on July 1, 2011.

3

it agreed that the deposition could occur as far after the fact

4

discovery deadline as late October, and Defendant helped to create

5

some of the subsequent delay through its motion to quash the

6

second subpoena in mid-November.

Defendant also represented that

Plaintiff diligently filed this

7
motion five days after Defendant filed that motion to quash.
8
9

Accordingly, the Court finds that there is good cause to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

extend the fact discovery deadline for the limited purpose of

11

allowing Plaintiff to depose a representative of Bank of America.

12
13
14

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from
the case management schedule is GRANTED (Docket No. 108).

The

15
fact discovery deadline is extended for the limited purpose of
16
allowing Plaintiff to take a deposition of a Bank of America
17
18

representative within twenty days after either of the following

19

events: (1) entry of an order in the Western District of North

20

Carolina authorizing a deposition; or (2) agreement by Bank of

21

America to make a representative available for deposition.

22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated: 12/16/2011
25

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
6